Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs
Issue 16 - Evidence - Meeting of June 1, 2005
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 1, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs met this day at 4:01 p.m. to examine the development and security challenges facing Africa; the response of the international community to enhance that continent's development and political stability; and Canadian foreign policy as it relates to Africa.
Senator Peter A. Stollery (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I would welcome everyone to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, a meeting held in the context of our special study on Africa.
We will focus today on issues related to governance, a most important topic in the context of this study. First we will hear from Ms. Claire Marshall, Director, Institute On Governance, a non-profit organization founded in 1990 to promote effective governance. For the institute, governance comprises the traditions, institutions and processes that determine how power is exercised, how citizens are given a voice and how decisions are made on issues of public concern.
We will then hear from Mr. Edward Osei Kwadwo Prempeh, Associate Professor of Political Science and Sociology, Carleton University. Mr. Prempeh's current research highlights the dynamic relationship between economic liberalization, globalization and democracy in the Third World in general, and in Africa in particular.
[Translation]
We will then have the pleasure of hearing from Mr. Kashimoto Ngoy, an international development researcher and longstanding member of the Société pour le développement international. He has worked as an advisor to the embassy of Zaire in Ottawa from 1980 to 1988. Mr. Ngoy is currently working on a book entitled Défis du développement dans les méandres des phénomènes africains.
I would like to welcome you all to the Senate of Canada.
[English]
Ms. Claire Marshall, Director, Institute On Governance: Thank you for inviting the Institute On Governance this afternoon to help with your deliberations on governance and Africa, not an easy challenge for you at all. My focus will be on governance and I have three main points to put on the table for further exploration, if you wish.
First, governance is a lot more than what government does; second, governance is not so much an end state as a process; and third, because it is a process, and although the institutions of governance are important, the underlying principles of sound governance are extremely important.
As the chair explained, the institute has been engaged in research, publications, professional development and advice on governance issues for 14 years in Canada and in about 30 countries overseas. When we started in the early 1990s, the word ``governance'' was ill-defined, little understood and, in fact, I understand it did not even exist in French. By the late 1990s, there was a lot more talk about governance and some more understanding of it. However, in the last five years, I find it drips from everyone's lips but perhaps it is still not clearly understood as to what it is and why it matters.
The three quotes I selected to put in the paper presentation before you today show from 2000-02, and most recently from the Blair Commission for Africa, the increasing importance of governance to development. The one for the commission for Africa, which I know you have been examining, simply states that, without progress in governance, all other reforms will have limited impact.
What is governance? In introducing the institute, the chair stole one of my lines, but I will repeat it just in case you did not catch it: Governance for us is defined as the interaction among structures, processes and traditions that determine how power is exercised, how decisions are taken and how citizens or other stakeholders have their say. Immediately, you have more than just government in the mix. It is about power, relationships and accountability — who has influence and who decides how decision makers are held accountable. While sound governance can be seen as an end to itself, it is also a process that can be undertaken by any number of actors, singly or together, and is distinct from the institutions of government.
In the graph that you have in slide 3, I have depicted what might be seen as three players in the governance spectrum: the government, certainly an important player, civil society and the private sector, connected, albeit imperfectly, by media that shares information, sometimes incorrect information, and passes it from one sector to another — not an impartial player but a very important one.
Having more than government as the centre of governance means it is altogether easier to make change because you have many more talents and much more effort to put against the wheel. However, it also makes it more complex because you have more players with more views and more interests that have to be balanced. All of this, all of the institutions and forums and get-togethers and ways in which the partners can discuss and progress toward a higher quality of life through sound governance, is surrounded by the particular values, histories, cultures and traditions that each country will have.
Canada has its own. Canada has more than one set of values, cultures, histories and traditions. Every country in Africa has the same and that makes it very difficult indeed to even think about one size fits all when trying to introduce a governance process.
The principles for good governance become useful if you have all of this difference and variety possible. The five I have listed here are adapted from a UN list of nine. We have reduced it simply because I find nine an impossible quantity to remember. Five is a little bit more within my grasp.
``Legitimacy and Voice'' speaks to the participation of all men and women in making decisions and a consensus orientation so that all the partners are working toward a common goal. ``Direction'' speaks to strategic vision, that the leaders and the public have a broad understanding of where they want to go and have a long-term perspective on good governance and human development, along with a sense of what is needed for that. This is also where historical and cultural values come in. ``Performance'' speaks both to responsiveness and to effectiveness and efficiency, such that processes and institutions produce results that meet needs, while making the best use of resources. ``Accountability'' includes accountability itself, accountability of decision makers in government, the private sector and civil society so that they are accountable to their own members and to the public; and transparency, which is built on the free flow of information. The final principle, fairness, involves both equity, such that all men and women have opportunities to improve or maintain their well-being, and the rule of law, which is such an important framework within which business, civil society and the whole of society can work. Those frameworks should be fair and enforced impartially.
Studies indicate that there is value in having a balance between the players in the governance set-up. The state, civil society and business seem to work best and make more productive decisions when they have equal influence. You can see this in the next slide that depicts governance relationships for Canada, the U.K. and Sweden, which all enjoy a high quality of life. Many states around the world display a distinct imbalance in these spheres.
I have two fictional examples of governance relationships: one where the state is larger than the other players in society, which could be typical of a country transiting from a communist regime; and the other where there can be more than three players in a governance set-up. Sometimes these extra players can be extremely powerful. In this example, I have chosen the military as a distinct player in many such countries. Religion can also be a separate and powerful player. When there is an imbalance, there is often one dominant power. That means the other players have little or no voice, there is less accountability, poor decision making and abuse of power.
The last slide touches on Africa. I found seven minutes to talk of governance and Africa an impossible challenge, so I hope that my colleagues who have more experience in Africa will take up the challenge. I selected five issues that are examples only of the many governance challenges facing Africa. They all rely on and draw from either the interrelationship of the three players I described or the principles. They are the challenge and the necessity to incorporate cultural values and traditions, such as effectively engaging traditional leadership; strengthening the capacity of civil society to effectively engage with the other players to give them a voice; the loss of leadership through the effects of HIV/AIDS, conflicts and brain drain; the need for greater public sector transparency and accountability, which speaks to the rule of law and to trying to engage other players in society; and the value of encouraging an independent media who, although not impartial, will at least be able to play a stronger role in sharing information and turning the searchlight on to practices in the various governments.
I look forward to senators' questions and discussion.
The Chairman: Mr. Prempeh, please proceed.
Mr. Edward Osei Kwadwo Prempeh, Associate Professor of Political Science and Sociology, Carleton University, As an individual: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for this opportunity to share with this committee some of my thoughts on the issue of government in Africa. I intend to make some brief remarks at this juncture. I received the invitation to appear very late, so I do not have a more detailed paper for senators. If the committee so wishes, I can submit one to the Clerk of the Committee in about one week's time.
As senators are aware, Blair's Commission for Africa report, issued on March 11, 2005, makes the case for the importance of governance in Africa. The report states that weakness in governance and capacity is a central cause of Africa's difficult experience over the last decades. This emphasis on good governance is nothing new. The word ``governance'' has been used in the developing discourse since the 1990s as part of the so-called ``good governance agenda.'' According to this view poor governance was a root cause of Africa's problems and the prescribed remedy was good governance, the essence of which is the management of state resources for the benefit of its citizens.
While the report of the Blair commission appears to have caught the public imagination, it is important to point out that it is treading a well-worn path. Twenty-five years ago, former West German Chancellor Willy Brandt, in the so- called Brandt report on the Commission on Global Governance, called for action to address property in the south through more and better-deployed aid. Some of the issues that the Blair report talks about now are the same kinds of issues expressed in the Brandt report 25 years ago. Just imagine, 25 years later we are talking about the same events. You have to ask where we have been all this time? Why has there been no movement on the issues of governance and other interrelated issue that the Blair commission talks about?
In light of this, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that the time for talk is over. The goals and imaginative recommendations outlined by the commission regarding the emphasis being on the need for good governance and capacity building, peace and security, investment in human development, poverty reduction, fairer trade and increased aid to Africa, is consistent with Canadian values, no matter how you define those goals. If they are consistent with Canadian values, it is my belief that they should form the basis of Canadian foreign policy. How might Canada help in the area of governance and capacity building?
The first area is to strengthen the institutions of government, that is, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, to increase transparency, accountability and the effectiveness of Parliaments, the justice system and local government structures as part of a genuine process of decentralization; and improve the role of the media and all other issues central to the process of strengthening institutions of government.
The second area is public sector reform — a key item for the ability of governments to review policies. Going back to most of these African countries you would be amazed by the lack of public policy expressed within the public service. It is not because of a lack of human capacity but it is because the human capacity is not being used productively. We need to find ways for Canada to ensure that the human capacity present in Africa is nurtured and utilized to develop the continent. We need to find ways to empower ordinary citizens in civil society.
When we talk about empowering people in civil society, a romantic notion seems to occur. There is a tendency to perceive the state as evil and civil society as the embodiment of all that is good in Africa. I say again that this romantic view of civil society needs to change. As indicated earlier, there is a need to strike a balance between the state, civil society, other institutions and other mediums for expressing and empowering the citizens of Africa.
We need to start thinking about the use of traditional rulers. Those of you who know my name and know your Ghanan history will understand that as I walked in, one of the senator's assistants said, ``You are from Ashanti.'' Yes, I am from there and one activity of the World Bank is to work with the Asantehene to try to deliver development to the true, traditional authorities of the people in Ghana. That is one way of trying to circumvent government because at times government is the problem in Africa when it comes to issues of good governance and the delivery of projects. We need to start using traditional rulers and tap into their role as custodians of traditional values. We need to think outside the box.
We must examine the role of the African diaspora communities as evolving partners. The diaspora is the key strategic asset in building Africa's capacity. We must find a way for this diaspora to transfer its skills and resources back to Africa. After all, most of us professionals share a common vision of and commitment to Africa's development.
Finally, we need an effective, independent monitoring mechanism to be created and supported that is consistent with the peer review mechanism of NEPAD so that we can periodically evaluate progress in Africa.
In the final analysis, the best way for Canada to support Africa is by helping the continent develop and advance its productive capacity, strengthen its administrative capability and promote good governance, all essential ingredients for sustained growth and poverty reduction. The goal should be to help Africans develop this productive capacity so that they can stand on their own. The goal should be a strong and prosperous Africa, ready to take its rightful place on the world stage.
I am an optimist, as I hope you all are. However, wealth alone will not suffice. We need concrete action now. There was a clear need for political will among African governments to improve governance and build capacity and for foreign governments, including Canada, to provide the support and resources necessary to get the job done. I trust that this committee will play an important role in this respect.
[Translation]
Mr. Kashimoto Ngoy, International Development Researcher: Mr. Chairman, I will speak in French but will be available to answer questions in both English and French.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss with you a matter which was the subject of a panel I was on last February and which was jointly organized by the Canadian Institute of Public Administration and the Société pour le développement international. In answer to the questions we were asked, I replied that the major challenge facing development in Africa was and is autocratic regimes which reject any criticism of their inconsistent policies. Other challenges are the increasingly strong autocratic trends in countries where change is happening and, indeed, the idea that politics is not the encounter of adversaries, but rather the killing of one's enemies.
We cannot ignore nor underestimate this type of power since we know that the freedom, democracy or development we enjoy here and in the rest of the Western world came about after centuries of fighting against tyranny.
Given the national and international resources which have been invested in trying to solve the conflicts created by such a system, it would be unwise to again count on investment to bring about development and democracy, since these concepts are incompatible with tyrannical regimes. By its very nature, development is inclusive, but tyranny is exclusive. Development fights poverty, but tyrannical regimes like poverty because it helps them control their populations. Development tries to eliminate illiteracy, but tyranny promotes it so that citizens remain ignorant and cling to their myths.
The research we have been conducting for some time now shows that there are many incompatibilities; they lead to abdication of responsibility by the state and to paralysis of the economy.
Through plundering, tyranny discourages investment; it is the enemy of social progress and knowledge. The response to the tragic spectacle of tyranny must marshall determination, firm action and strong pressure. Canada has shown this to be the case in South Africa and Angola.
Otherwise, dictatorships which do not understand diplomatic euphemisms will continue to deceive the world by claiming that their regimes are based on the country's cultures and traditions. Dictatorships are aware that they are vulnerable, so they present the continent as being complex, an enigma, a mystery. But one thing is sure, dictatorships do not fool those who are intelligent.
To justify why they reject democracy, dictators often invoke the distinctiveness of Africa, while only mentioning epiphenomena. African cultures and traditions are not an obstacle to development, democracy or governance.
Since Africa lags behind everyone else in this process, as Nelson Mandela has said, it can take advantage of the experience of other countries. Canada is in the best position to offer its experience, given its nature, its history and its political organization.
If we are to have an exchange of views on this subject, I would rather talk about the future and of how we can meet the challenges I have just described. There is no doubt that where there is suffering there is violence. In Africa, dictatorships are the main cause of violence.
Government, which holds on to power through armed gangs and teams, is only called that by perverting language. These gangs and teams are created in the following manner. Young people get their hands on a couple of AK-47s, they massacre the population in one part of the country, and accede to power following negotiations and good faith missions on the part of the international community and the United Nations.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo is a typical example. In the jungle and on the street, from school dropouts to the country's leaders, everyone is so fascinated by autocratic power and its exciting ramifications that it is difficult today to convince people of the importance of school and training. This same drama is repeated from country to country. In most cases, the leaders are supposed to do things for which they have no experience, to make political and economic decisions for which they have no background. These leaders verbalize concepts they do not understand, and this ignorance leads to the trivialization of those very concepts.
As a result, the chasm between Africa and the world is growing; cooperation becomes very difficult at the very point when humanitarian needs are such that international collaboration is desperately needed. However, if we are to discuss the continent's future, a future many people are afraid of because things are developing so quickly, we automatically have to include its young people. The time has therefore come to plant the seeds to help young people in the future, to prepare them for the duties and responsibilities which await them. In educating young people, we have to make them aware of democratic values and focus the teaching they receive on the interactive skills they will need.
These are areas in which Canada distinguishes itself. Furthermore, Canada can help in these areas through its non- governmental organizations.
In order to achieve this, Mr. Chairman, I would recommend, for instance, organizing youth parliaments, in which young people learn to develop their party's programs, to participate in election campaigns and in leaders' debates. They would also learn about the role of the press, how to organize elections, how to form a government, an opposition and parliamentary committees, and how to participate in debates and in question period.
As well, a few months ago I was involved in a very interesting project which took place in a middle school, namely Greenbank Middle School, which is part of the Ottawa School Board. The project involves students putting together workshops to create small and medium sized businesses, or students getting together to found their own professional firms, to draw up a business plan and to negotiate bank loans.
This project helped the students better understand what is involved in making a living and helped them better understand what investment is all about and that patience is necessary, because profits usually are generated only after three years of hard work.
In conclusion, the student project could be a good reference point for adults who often get upset before an election is called. Perhaps they could learn something about what they pretend to know when in reality, they do not.
Back when I advised the embassy, we created projects with Canada World Youth, a Canadian NGO. In Zaire, young Canadians made bricks, built a school and a dispensary; they restored schools and hospitals, they bought local products in the villages where they were staying and slept on bamboo beds. False perceptions were dispelled as these young Canadians engaged in hard physical labour under a burning sun. The Canadians' hard work broke the myths created throughout the history of the independent state of Congo, beginning with exploration and colonization.
[English]
Senator Corbin: I have one brief question to Ms. Marshall. I listened attentively when you spoke of the principles of good governance, but I did not catch a comment on ethics. Would you say a word about ethical conduct and how you deal with corrupt regimes and that sort of thing?
Ms. Marshall: You are quite right, senator. I did not mention ethics, but that does not mean they are not an important part of the mix. I think in my brief outline of the principles for sound governance, ethics permeate everything. They come in particularly under performance responsiveness and effectiveness and efficiency, which I simply described as producing results that meet needs while making the best use of resources. The best use of resources, of course, does raise the question of corruption and ethics.
Ethics also comes in under accountability and transparency. If you do not have transparency, people find their own way to make things happen. If people do not understand what the rules are or if the rules are not equal, people will engage in corrupt practices to make things happen in their own best interests. It takes two to tango. That can happen either on the public side or the citizen side.
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: You insisted, with good reasons, on the potential of young people. When I was young — we were Roman Catholics — there were a lot of missionary trips to Africa. Canada had its missionary societies, including the Pères Blancs d'Afrique. There were communities of religious men and women. We were still in the colonial era. However, I do believe that these missionaries contributed to making young people more responsible. I leave aside the strictly religious aspect, but a significant number of potential leaders in many countries back then were affected by the missionaries.
Some African chiefs trace their roots back to that era. They are in the process of disappearing or have disappeared. It seems to me that during the decolonization period that phenomenon certainly did slow down and, to all practical intents and purposes, it has disappeared. I am wondering, when you talk about emphasizing youth, if that emphasis did not already exist? Was no importance granted to that emphasis? What happened, meantime, so that all this work, it seems to me, disappeared or crumbled? I get the impression there was a hiatus in continuity during that period, which I hesitantly qualify as missionary, during colonization, decolonization and the contemporary era. The world has totally changed, perhaps for the better in many cases. Now here you are today with what we understood to be of utmost importance: the hope of the future is our youth. Do we not seem to be starting all over again? Is it true that the troubles disrupting good governance in many African states are not carrying within them some form of disincentive at the outset? Are you really convinced, when pinning such high hopes on your new youth?
Mr. Ngoy: I come from a small town in the middle of the Congo that was developed by the Canadian religious congregation called Les soeurs missionaires du Christ-Roi from Chomedey. They also have a house in Montreal. That congregation established itself in that small town in the middle of the country exactly the year I was born, over 45 years ago. All the schools, all the hospitals, all the social development in that town were the responsibility of those nuns. They continue still today working in very difficult conditions. The schools where my own sisters studied, are due to Canadian taxpayers.
As you have said, this development began and, at some point, it stopped. Why?
The sisters could not take care of the logistics, of all the aid coming from Canada, the drugs and the administration of the schools and hospitals. But at least at that time, the teachers could get their salaries. That was the minimum that the organization in place could ensure.
What is going on today? Our poor teachers whose salaries are really minimal have not been paid for three, four or five years. It is hard for the nuns to deal with both the problems due to infrastructure and the salaries of their staff.
So the children, who only see adventures, lose interest in school because they see all kinds of things going on around them and their parents do not actually have the means to feed them enough for them to go to school.
Sometimes a child does not eat for three days; on the fourth day, the meal is still hypothetical. Sometimes you hear that in a family group of eight to ten people, they form two groups. One group eats on the Monday and the others on the Tuesday. These conditions are not at all favourable to teaching and that is when discouragement sets in. It is even more difficult for these valiant nuns to take care of everything that has been let go and that should actually be the responsibility of the state.
Pressures are brought to bear on the political organization on site. The young people lose interest in learning because of what they see. That is what is frightening. The work that all the organizations and the missionaries are doing is enormous. You cannot neglect that factor, but when the nuns dare denounce anything at all, all kinds of reprisals are taken against them whereas what they are doing should be encouraged by the local authorities.
[English]
Senator Di Nino: Our committee has been studying this subject for about three months. It is frustrating to discover how much effort has been put into attempting to provide aid to Africa over the last 45 or 50 years. Professor Prempeh has told us that the time for words has passed. There has been enough talk. We need some action.
It seems to me that the more we do, the deeper we dig the hole. Perhaps the governance currently in place is part of the reason why the hole gets bigger instead of smaller.
What role does the cultural baggage — and I do not use that phrase in any negative way — play in preventing the development of Africa, with all of its potential and its talented people that we see on a regular basis? By ``cultural baggage,'' I mean the traditional cultural values of subservience, particularly in the rural areas and in the smaller centres. Is Africa is still facing that problem?
Mr. Prempeh: The issue of culture is always a sensitive one. We need a view of culture that says that culture is not static, that it is dynamic. All cultures evolve over time, so you have to place things in a historical perspective. I will give you a classic example. I teach a course in human rights. One of the first things I tell my students is that I come from a large family. My dad had four wives, and there are 24 kids. All the students say, ``Oh, no!'' I see a shocked look on their faces. I ask them, ``Why are you shocked? Go to British Columbia. There is a Christian community in British Columbia, in 2005, and they accept polygamy. Go to Utah where the Mormons there accept polygamy. Why this look of bewilderment on your faces?'' I always try to keep my classes lively. However, one thing I will not dare do is take another wife.
Most important is the fact that times have changed. Cultural values change over time. We cannot tell the people of Africa to leave behind their cultural values, and I do not think that is what you are suggesting. How do we strengthen institutions while recognizing the cultural values prevalent in Africa? If there are values that go against human rights, then we need to speak out against those values. We have to come to terms with the importance of those cultural values and with the traditions of the African people. It is what makes us who we are.
We also have traditional and cultural values here in Canada. My colleague said earlier that it is important for us to place governance in the context of the cultural milieu in which it will evolve. In those cases where culture stands as an obstacle, we need to engage with the people. In some cases, culture serves to enhance development, like the idea of traditional rulers. In some respects, traditional rulers have more legitimacy than the central governments, because traditional rulers are seen as the custodians of the values and the culture of the people of Africa.
If you have a forward-thinking traditional ruler, you could direct some of your aid through that ruler and try to deliver development to the people. Culture is dynamic, and cultures will change. We need to engage the people of Africa in broad-based discussions about the values of those cultures and how those cultures either contribute to or impede development. We need to find ways to change those that impede development. However, I would also suggest that, over time, because cultures are dynamic, they tend to the respond to the changing circumstances of the times and the important thing is for us to engage people and get on with our discussion.
Senator Di Nino: It was not meant as a judgmental or a negative comment. My question was related to the hierarchy that exists, the subserviency that sometimes comes with what I call ``cultural baggage,'' which was not meant in a negative sense, and whether that is impacting on the ability of Africa to move forward. Particularly, does it impact on the development of its own value investments, if you wish, to be able to spread the wealth further rather than in the smaller groups that exist today?
I suspect that it has some effect and I am not sure whether it is major or otherwise. Ms. Marshall, standing outside the forest looking in, do you have a different point of view to share?
Ms. Marshall: I hesitate to enter this, especially with my accent. A lot of damage was done by the British in Africa, but they did leave behind, perhaps, a few good things. However, stepping aside from the colonial history and baggage that might have been left, one thing that comes out from the study of governance and how decisions are well made or can be better made is the notion of consensus. I believe I am right in understanding that many, if not all African groups, countries, cultural entities value consensus highly, perhaps more so than the typical Western government, which tends to defer, even these days, to hierarchy and will accept a decision made by one of behalf of others.
In a way, you see this consensus approach bumping up against the hierarchical approach. You see it even in Canada with Aboriginal people and the traditional mainstream Western approach. It is a very strong predictor of success in terms of this natural tendency, this traditional belief in the value of consensus.
Senator Di Nino: Let me deal with this in a different way, if I can. My question came out of the last two of your ``why do we care'' comments. Both Kofi Annan and the Blair Commission for Africa talk about good governance. Kofi Annan said that good governance is perhaps the single most important factor in eradicating poverty and promoting development. There is also the Commission for Africa statement which is that without progress in governance, all other reforms will have limited impact.
Should then the aid and assistance that comes from the outside world to Africa be tied to good governance? Should it be tied in some way to ensure that those who are closest and at the top are sharing this with those who maybe need it most? That is what led to my question before.
Ms. Marshall: I have a brief comment on that. There is some thought in the federal government at the moment that aid might indeed go to those countries that are slightly higher up the ladder in terms of sound governance. That is not an area on which I should comment.
However, I think we should not say we are not going to get involved in countries unless they are well on the road to sound governance, because you then have to decide what is good enough governance. Maybe some elements of what I spoke about and described are sufficient to get things going, to get the ball rolling. If we wait to achieve perfection in governance in any country, including our own, we will be waiting for a long time.
That it why I prefer to go to the principles underlying sound governance and that can lead toward it. If we work with countries that choose to go that path and adopt principles and bear them out in their actions and in the way they interact together within the country, there is a stronger chance of them achieving success.
The World Bank has a chequered history of its own, but lately it has been coming out with some very interesting governance indicators which, over time, are beginning to show that some of these principles do lead to a higher quality of life.
Senator Di Nino: Perhaps Mr. Ngoy would like to comment on that.
[Translation]
Mr. Ngoy: I will come back to the point dealing with culture. Cultures evolve. African cultures are not caught up in the shackles of regression. In some of the research I have been doing on this matter, I have seen that in one of the African languages the word ``tyranny'' is synonymous with ``cruelty.'' So I said to myself that a tyrant is a cruel person.
In what kind of society can you allow the existence of a cruel person? My colleague spoke about the role of the traditional chief. That is a preponderant role. When you go further, you can see what difference there is between what the role of the traditional chief used to be and the role of the present leaders.
To be a traditional chief, your first responsibility is to see to the social well-being of the populations in the village. Today, we have presidents who are quite insensitive to the hardships faced by their populations. Is that part of the culture? No, these are deviations that are going in the wrong direction. These are people who talk a lot because the traditional chiefs remain in their villages and they cannot say what the population is doing. And what are those who talk saying? They answer that it is part of their culture. It is easy to believe because they are the ones meeting the people.
You have to go further and dig deeper to find reality. That is why we are saying that cultures and traditions do not put the brakes on development, governance and democracy. But how do you arrive at a consensus? That is what was done in traditional societies. That is not being done anymore today.
[English]
The Chairman: I have a question before I call on Senator Gustafson. We would all like countries to have good governments or good governance, however you describe it. However, it seems to me the problem is the same problem that we had in the Western world when, at the end of the 18th century, there was a huge shift in power in England, when the power shifted from the landowners to the new wealth of industry. We all know that, in 1790, there was no democracy in England. It was all rigged. People bought and sold constituencies. That changed with the increased wealth and the shift of people to the cities.
We all know about the great reform bill, the subsequent reform bills and all of that. The idea that we have a long tradition of open democratic societies is just nonsense. It seems to me that in our world it was all related to wealth. Wealth created the changes.
As Mr. Ngoy has so dramatically described, people eat only on alternate days, because there is no wealth. In fact, it could be argued that there is less wealth than there used to be. People band together in order to grab money. In Latin America, for example, you join the army because the army guarantees you a way to live in the harsh and brutal world into which you were born. People may band together in a political party, which forms a close knit group of people. When there is no money, people band together in small groups and take over what little there is.
Is there any answer to that in a poor country, other than the answer that the Western world used, which was the Industrial Revolution? Our society is basically a result of the Industrial Revolution.
We see this not only in Africa but also south of the Rio Grande, an area with which I am quite familiar. Groups take over countries. The only reason they do that is because there is nothing there. By banding together in some kind of a group, they grab what they can. Is there any way of dealing with that other than increasing the wealth of the country? If that does not remove the temptation, it at least makes it easier to achieve a balance. Is there any answer? Will you get transparency and good governance, things we would all like, in a country where people eat only on alternate days?
Mr. Prempeh: Mr. Chairman, you have hit on one of the ironies of the African situation. Africa is a wealthy continent. Some African countries are wealthy, such as Nigeria and Ghana. They have the resources to generate wealth. The elitists in these African countries are now beginning to use language such as ``creation of an ownership society.'' The problem is that the wealth that is generated is not being distributed fairly. Indeed, the wealth that is generated is being taken by the elite within the societies. Therefore, the generation of wealth per se is not the issue. The wealth is being generated. It is a question of how that wealth is being distributed.
That is why what my colleague said earlier is very important. Why do people participate in government, for instance? Why do they want to be at the helm of the state? They want that because it provides them with opportunities to enrich themselves at the expense of ordinary citizens. Some refer to this as a vampire state, which sucks away the wealth and distributes it to the elite in society.
We must think about striking a fair balance between the state and civil society. We need to empower ordinary citizens and civil society to serve as a counterbalance to the state. The state alone cannot be the source of wealth generation and wealth creation within African countries. The private sector needs to play an increasing role.
We talk about issues of corruption and the role that the elite play in that, but we sometimes forget about issues of corporate governance. Multinational corporations — Canadian, American, British and French — that go into Africa to do business are engaged in corrupt practices. They are the ones paying the 10 per cent commissions. When we talk about governance, we need to talk also about good corporate governance and good corporate citizens with a sense of social responsibility.
How can a mining company go into an obscure rural area, take away all the diamonds and gold and leave an environmental disaster behind? That is unacceptable, yet it happens on a daily basis in Africa.
We need to tackle issues at the top. In my opening remarks I said that it is very important for us to find a different way to deliver our aid so that it does not go through the government. In Canada we hear that we have to provide the aid to the governments so that the governments feel that they have ownership of the process. I keep asking people, ``Ownership of what?'' If you do not develop the capacity within government ministries and you transfer funds to those ministries, those funds will disappear because there is no capacity there. The human capacity is there, but it has not been developed in such a way as to take advantage of the resources made available.
Let us talk about the creation of a new ownership society, but let us root out corruption not only at the elite level but also in terms of corporate governance. Let us empower ordinary citizens and civil society, but we must not fall into the romanticization of civil society. It is critical that we strike a fair balance between the state and civil society so that they can counterbalance each other. That is one of the surest ways to move forward.
Senator Gustafson: I do not have a quick solution to these complex problems, but I do not agree entirely with Senator Stollery. I believe that Canada and America were built as a result of Europe concluding that, without a strong agricultural base to feed your people, you have an enormous problem.
I have been to Africa three times. My family has supported orphanages and been involved in various other ways. When I am there, I question what incentive there is for young people to produce the food the country needs. Farming is tough business. I have farmed all my life, and I know that it is tough. In Canada and the United States young people do not want to farm. We will be in trouble if this trend continues. My grandsons have no idea of farming, and we are attempting to solve everything with education. They will have a good education and so they will want a good white- collared job in an office, perhaps as an engineer for an oil company where there is some real money. You cannot blame young people for wanting that. I see is no opportunity for young people in agriculture.
Throughout history the Americans have fought for their heartland. Wherever senators are from, they will fight for the heartland. We do not have that kind of dedication in Canada, quite frankly. They, but they have it in Europe. I have been there three times and the agricultural people will tell you they had real hunger in Europe. They called us Americans and told us that we do not know what hunger is all about. How do you develop the agricultural base to feed that part of the world? My son was over there with the Canadian Food Grain Bank. He said that things would grow right out of a fence post. In Canada, we have a hard time getting things to grow. How can an agricultural base be developed and people put in place to handle it?
The Chairman: I want to remind the senator that we have had extensive information on African agriculture, as evidenced in the minutes of the committee. However, the group before us today is on governance in Africa.
Senator Gustafson: These people looked at the overall situation in Africa, if you will. You must have some comments on that.
[Translation]
Mr. Ngoy: Agriculture is one of the great African paradoxes. We have countries where it rains all year and other countries where you have a dry season and a rainy season and you can get three or four crops during a year. It is always very troubling to see a population dying of hunger.
There are explanations and examples. You were talking about young people from the US or Canada who do not look on agriculture with a very favourable eye and who want to get degrees and good jobs. What is happening in Africa is a bit different. Nothing is being invested in agriculture which is an enormous source of wealth. Agriculture has remained at the subsistence stage. No investment is being made. It is just a full day's job, with a hoe in your hand and your back to the sun. A father, a mother and a family with 10 children cannot produce enough to feed 12 people. There is just no investment. In some cases, you give the populations the impression that eating imported food is one way of being civilized. But then the imported food costs so much that the average citizen cannot afford it. And there is always a clique that wants to get rich with that. So there are people who do not eat. And even if they have a small field, some two or three kilometres from their house, they cannot produce enough. The system just is not favourable to agriculture. In subsistence mode, if there is not enough for my own family, I will not be giving any to my neighbour. The population is increasing — we are talking about a demographic explosion — but you cannot blame anyone for not doing what is impossible.
There are perceptions that go way back. I remember the first government after independence, in the Congo. One of the leaders who had negotiated this independence in Belgium, when it came time to be part of the government, refused the position of Minister of Agriculture, saying that he could not accept to be the minister for farmers.
Under such conditions, from Independence Day to date, if no investments are made — and we are dealing with a demographic explosion — famine is going to hit and hit very hard.
[English]
Senator Nancy Ruth: I have three questions. My first is on foreign aid being held back from countries if they do not have a certain base level of governance. What is the human cost to countries where this applies and what is the cost to NGOs?
My second question is on the transfer of leadership from NGOs to governments or to their agencies or other instruments of governance. There then has to be a whole new level of leadership, which is good at times and not so good at other times. How does one do governance at that kind of level when these leaders are needed to help build other parts of the country?
My third question is about the phrase you used of a balance between civil society and government. Could you talk about that balance? Perhaps it is a teeter totter.
Ms. Marshall: One would assume that not all foreign aid would be held back from any one country. If a country decides to redirect its funds in a particular direction, it does not mean that the country would be completely out in the cold. It would be difficult for countries to make the kinds of changes that my colleagues today have suggested without some kind of assistance or resource from outside.
The question of transfer of leadership from civil society to government is a most interesting one. I am aware of that having happened, particularly in South Africa. Before the African National Congress came in, there were no Black leaders in the government at all, but they were extremely active outside in civil society or underground or elsewhere. I understand there was quite a shift into government because these were the people who knew how to organize, had support and networks and very often a good level of education. They were able to step into the civil service as well as into the political echelons, leaving behind a gutted civil society, which is what I think you are referring to.
It becomes absolutely critical for these new leaders, who should know where they came from, to turn back and help build the capacity of the organizations they left behind. Perhaps not all of them would be needed, not all the proliferation of organizations might be needed, but the value of government contributing to the building of capacity in civil society should not be underestimated. We have done it here for quite a while. Sometimes people feel the government shoots itself in the foot by supporting a civil society that argues against them vociferously, but it does lead to greater balance. I am sure others on this panel would have comments on that.
Could you repeat your question on the balance, please?
Senator Nancy Ruth: You talked about the balance between civil society and government, and there needs to be a balance. Do not be too romantic about civil society; do not think government is going to do it all. You are talking about something in between. What is in between? Spell it out for me. Give me a lecture on it.
Ms. Marshall: The notion of balance here is to get different ideas and voices into the mix. Do not forget the private sector could also have a voice here. It is just that, if government takes on its shoulders all the responsibility for correcting all of the ills in society, it has a very tough go of it. In Canada, we rely hugely on the delivery of programs and services by civil society organizations. We rely hugely on the input from those same organizations to bring information from the grassroots, from the ground forward into the rather ivory tower area of policy development.
If we only relied on the 170,000 federal public servants, for instance, to take on all of that work, we would be in a pretty powerless state. We would not be recognizing the talent and energy available in those other sectors of society. It does not always depend solely on government to create change and progress. Lots of things are done by civil society on their own without recourse to government. If you go to countries where the civil society is quite weak, then perhaps an effort should be made to strengthen their understanding of how policy decisions are made so that the civil society members have a chance to contribute to the dialogue and bring theirs views to the table.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Funded by whom?
Ms. Marshall: Often by the government and often by outside donors. Donors are frequently working directly with civil society organizations these days.
The Chairman: I know I have a question from Senator Corbin.
Senator Di Nino: Can we hear the other witnesses on those questions?
[Translation]
Mr. Ngoy: Just a word on this matter of the balance between civil society and the government. I will just raise the matter of concept once again. As my colleague has just said, there are countries where civil society has not developed all that much.
You can help people understand the very principle of civil society. I heard one authority say: ``What is all this about giving importance to civil society?'' The authority who was saying this took power because he was in an armed gang. The trivialization of such a process, becoming commonplace, serves as the basis for a population's emancipation. There is a way to help them understand the process of parties and the elaboration of public policy. People get organized as fishing groups or groups engaged in other things and in that way they can see to their own interests. However, if the authority in place and who can help them understands the word ``civil'' as being opposed to the army, then we have a big problem. It is a matter of being able to count on those who have the knowledge, and as my colleague said, the role the donor country plays is important.
Senator Robichaud: We often hear the same comments. I will refer to your opening statement, Ms. Marshall, having to do with the study on the World Bank. Kofi Annan says that good governance is the main guarantee. Further on, there is the question of taking into account culture, values and traditions.
When we, the donor countries, come to those conclusions, are we really making any effort to put them into practice or are we simply content with saying: ``We should do this in a certain way'' and, after that, everything just remains in a report on a shelf?
Look at the World Bank. Representatives came to tell us that in some countries, the action of that bank had completely obviated the need for the population to feed itself. Traditions had been totally ignored and, in fact, the majority of those countries were even poorer. Are we going to try to go in the direction of the statements we are making? Are we acting the way we should?
You are smiling, Madam.
[English]
Ms. Marshall: I prefer to smile.
Even the World Bank can change, just as cultures evolve. I remember participating in the early 1990s in what turned out to be a donnybrook between different factions within the World Bank itself at a conference, where one side was taking to task the other for even putting ethics on the agenda. They claimed that this was an internal matter for countries and the World Bank should not be advising on ethics at all.
As we know, that has changed and the question of ethics — corruption, accountability and transparency — is very much on the agenda of the World Bank. It used to be that the World Bank focused almost entirely on the economic side of development, changing the banks, changing the financial structure of the country and that certainly is important. However, they, too, are now moving to a better understanding of the importance of governance, of helping the different players in society to work together to make decisions.
Ms. Marshall: It sounds terribly simple. It is not. The devil is in the details on the principles I have mentioned. It is easy to say, but because of the influence of culture, it is hard to actually put it into effect in even one country, let alone several.
The fact that the World Bank is now carrying out studies on governance indicators is an indication that they are changing their tune and seeing things in a more holistic fashion.
Mr. Prempeh: The only thing I would add is that the more the World Bank discovers it has made mistakes in the past, the more it tends to insist on following the same path.
The Chairman: Could you say that again, please?
Mr. Prempeh: The more the World Bank comes to the realization that it has gotten things wrong in the past, the more it asks these African governments to continue on the same path that got them into the mess in the first place. It does not seem to me that the World Bank has learned any lessons or that it is putting new mechanisms in place or implementing new policies in new directions. I do not believe they are doing that.
That is why I have said that the time for talk is over. What we need now is action. We cannot keep coming up with new reports and new studies that confirm what all the critics have said in the past: The poor get poorer when you implement such adjustments.
The agricultural extension officers who used to work with the farmers directly helped increase production, yet they have been withdrawn as part of the cutbacks of structural adjustment. What has been the effect? There has been a decrease in food production in those areas where the agricultural extension officers have been withdrawn. However, the World Bank does not seem to learn anything from this. The bank talks about moving away from food production to cash crop production. Those are the same policies that have been implemented for over 50 years. Nothing has changed.
I am not terribly sympathetic to the World Bank when it says it is learning something new, although I keep getting myself drawn into some of their activities. I was involved in a video conference with the World Bank on May 24, 2005, talking about the role the African diaspora communities can play. All of a sudden, the World Bank seems to have this huge interest. They have monies available, and they want to bring a group of us together in Washington in June. They want to have a donors' conference this year and talk about how to tap into the human capacity of Africans in the diaspora. If you invite us here in a year or two, they will be talking about the action plans they still have sitting on the shelves gathering dust. We need to move away from the talk to implementation in order to ensure we are making a difference in the lives of people who live on the continent of Africa.
[Translation]
Mr. Ngoy: I would like to make a comment on what my colleagues have just said. There is a lot of criticism directed at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund for their structural adjustment program. The same things, as my colleague has just said, have been repeated over the last 50 years. They are institutions but, and I am not saying that it is an easy solution, there are ways of considering them as they are. They were never changed by the criticism directed against them. They are there and they just carry on in one way or another. That is where I can see that a country like Canada, who has its own sensitivities, who has not lost sight of its humanism, can add its voice to the chorus and certainly, as my colleague Claire Marshall said, everything changes. Even the World Bank can change. Simply because of all the pressure brought to bear on it. When criticism is constructive, it will change the world.
Senator Robichaud: If we may continue in this vein, my question was: are we showing enough involvement with these institutions to invite them to change their ways more quickly, perhaps? Criticism cannot simply come from those countries that are subject to the conditions imposed by the bank, but also from the donor countries who, perhaps, see their action decreased because some of the bank's policies are not favourable to Canada's action. Are we putting enough pressure on those institutions to lead to change?
Mr. Ngoy: I quite agree with you. Perhaps we could say that some years ago the criticism was not as harsh as today. But there is always room for the voice of reason to be heard more loudly. Constructive criticism may fall into a deaf ear, but someday it will emerge because it is a matter of reason, and the truth will out. The World Bank may not be paying attention, but one day it will remember: ``Canada did tell us so.'' If the criticism is not as solid now, I think it can be solidified a bit for the voice of reason to be heard.
[English]
Ms. Marshall: About a year ago, we were asked by the Department for International Development in the U.K. to look at the governance of the World Bank family and the United Nations cluster of organizations.
The British government wanted to ensure that their representatives on the boards of these organizations recognized good governance practices and could encourage them where they saw them and nudge for improved practices elsewhere. That is within the World Bank and the UN family itself. It was a rather creative way of going about it, because the boards of these organizations comprise a large number of different countries trying to work together, and the practices for hiring, recruitment and the way proposals are brought forward and judged is perhaps less than transparent.
I am not sure whether there were significant changes in how the British representatives on those boards conducted their business or managed influence, but I thought it was something interesting for Canadian members of boards to look at as well.
The Chairman: I would remind everyone that we had Mr. Masse, the director of the World Bank, before the committee, and it was suggested that we go to Washington.
We were not going to go, but after hearing what Ms. Marshall had to say we would like to take a closer look at our directors and how this works. Some members of the committee have similar questions about this. In many ways, it arose out of the agricultural question. The World Bank asks African countries to follow agricultural policies that members of the World Bank do not themselves follow. This is something we would like to learn a little more about.
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: In 1999, I spoke on Africa following an official trip with the Governor General of Canada. I dared to say that:
Africa is still looking for its democratic formulas.
I also quoted someone called Sadikou Ayo Alao, the president of the Groupe d'étude et de recherche sur la démocratie et le développement économique et social en Afrique, who warned a group of parliamentarians meeting in Gabon against the danger of ``parliamentary colonialism,'' and I quote:
Apart from the universal principles of democracy, there is enough room to allow each constitutional and institutional model to reflect its citizens, its history, its culture and its socioeconomic realities.
Therefore, it is not indispensable to refer to a model to create a democratic constitution and democratic institutions. What is essential is to never give up striving for democratic and economic development.
I would like to know what you think of this and if you will accept my apology for doing so again, I will quote myself once more in referring to freedom of the press in Africa. I dared to say:
If we want to achieve genuine transparency, we need to, once and for all, give real freedom of expression to journalists; we must end the arbitrary detention of journalists, if not their outright assassination. There can be no real democracy without real freedom of expression on behalf of every constituent part of a democratic society, including the press.
When I looked at your organizational structures on governance, I noted that you put the media at the centre of the guarantees for good governance. I would like to know what you think about the two statements I made in 1999. I would like to know what has changed and what has not in terms of real freedom of expression in Africa.
I know that the situation has worsened in some places, but on the whole, has there been progress or not?
M. Ngoy: Senator Corbin, your quotes have touched me deeply, including the one referring to the journalist who was killed in Burkina Faso. In 2001, Savante histoire anthropologique, a magazine published by the French publisher Harmatan, published a piece entitled Développement et mal-développement, which it dedicated to the journalist who was brutally killed in Burkina Faso.
In Africa, all kinds of statements are made which pervert the language. People dress up democracy in all kinds of colours and use qualifiers which deform their words.
There is a sort of a flagrant contradiction in Africa. The countries as we know them today do not represent the old structures from before 1885. There are country entities which must be organized based on a certain model.
The model for a country, of course, came from colonization, but how can you have a country and go back to a completely non-operational structure, one which does not work for a country nor for a government? Since democracy has a proven track record, it is a bit too much to reject it outright without understanding the advantages it can confer.
When you travel through Africa, you often meet with officials who are close to the government and who are more or less mouthpieces for the government they represent. Often what they have to say is a perversion of the facts.
The press is important, it does part of the job which many others have done before, such as writers, because no one wants to see their name in the paper, especially if they have done something bad. Knowing this, the government, which always does things badly, does not admit that there exists a parallel press, or if it does admit to the existence of such a press, it is one which is beholden to the government and which, in fact, is the government's propaganda machine. So when you travel throughout a country, what you hear is propaganda which is spread by the means at the government's disposal. You do not hear the voice of the majority which is forced to remain silent.
That is why some statements have to be taken with a grain of salt because we do not know whom the person is representing.
Democracy has a proven track record. The reason we are discussing Africa today is because the continent has a huge problem. And instead of discussing future possibilities, development and how to build a better world, we are trying to find solutions and wondering what is not working.
What is not working? Well, basically one thing. There has not been much progress with regard to freedom of the press and a lot still remains to be done. Countries which recognize the power and usefulness of the press have to put pressure on African countries. The international association of journalists has exercised pressure, often after the fact, but at least something is being done. And if dictatorships seek reprisals against the press, I believe that they do not get good press. The media has to continue its efforts.
[English]
Senator Gustafson: Senator Corbin raised the question I was going to ask, that being lack of Western media coverage. You mentioned local media coverage. If something happens in Afghanistan, we know about it the next morning. We know how many were killed, how many were shot down, and so on. Atrocities can happen in Africa, and we do not know about it until well after the event. Is the Western media afraid for their lives to report there, or what is the problem?
Mr. Prempeh: I do not think Western journalists are afraid for their lives. It comes down to Africa's marginalization. It is not newsworthy. As you said, when something happens in Afghanistan, we know about it within hours or minutes. When something happens in Africa, no one seems to care. The continent has been marginalized and is not seen as newsworthy. Until that mentality changes, Africa will not be covered in the media here.
When disaster strikes in Africa, the media gets involved and we see pictures on television and in the newspapers of starving kids. However, what about the good news stories? The media should tell good news stories, because there are some good things happening in Africa.
Senator Gustafson: We have the same problem here.
Mr. Prempeh: The fact that most African countries have moved away from authoritarian governments to democratic governments is good news and we need to spread the word so that everyone knows that is happening.
A question was posed earlier about models of democracy. We need to go back to the five principles that Ms. Marshall talked about. Regardless of what system of democracy you have, it must reflect the five principles of legitimacy: voice, direction, performance, accountability, and fairness.
The Chairman: We are all aware that this is a difficult subject. We would thank you. Your remarks have been most interesting and we have learned a great deal.
The committee adjourned.